JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The selection of the respondent No. 6 and his subsequent appointment as Principal of the Tezpur College sometime in the year 1998 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present proceeding.
A Select List of candidates eligible for appointment as Principals in the Aided Colleges of the State was prepared under Rule 10 of the Assam Education Department Selection (Amendment) Rules, 1981 on 7.5.1997. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 121 of the said list whereas the 6th respondent’s name appeared at Sl. No. 174. Thereafter, an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14.12.1997 by the President of the Special Body (Governing Body of Tezpur College) inviting applications from persons selected by the State Selection Board for the post of Principal of the Tezpur College. Both the writ petitioner and the 6th respondent along with other candidates applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. A selection process was held by a Selection Board constituted by the Special Body of the college on 19.1.1998. In the said selection, the 6th respondent was placed at Sl. No. 1 in order of merit whereas the writ petitioner was not selected. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. As it now appears, after the present writ petition was filed, the 6th respondent was appointed as Principal of the Tezpur College on 11.4.1998 and he is continuing to hold the said post as on date.
2. Three principal grounds have been urged by the learned counsel, Mr. P.J. Phukan, in support of the challenge made in the present writ application. Firstly, it has been contended that the selection was held on 19.1.1998 on which date there was a ban on selection and appointment. Such ban, it is stated, was in force till 31.3.1998. Next, it has been contended that the petitioner is Ph.D. having several published works to his credit. The Selection Board committed serious errors in preferring the 6th respondent instead of the writ petitioner. Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner having been placed at Sl. No. 121 of the list prepared by the State Selection Board and the 6th respondent having been placed at Sl. No. 174, the aforesaid position could not have been altered in the subsequent selection process.
3. The arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner have been resisted by Mr. G.K. Bhattacharje, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6, as well as Mr. N. Barkataki, learned counsel appearing for the Tezpur College. It is argued that, what was prohibited by the ban in force is appointment upto the period 31.3.1998 and that selections held in anticipation of removal of the ban, on expiry of the time fixed, would not stand vitiated. The argument advanced by Mr. Phukan contending that the writ petitioner is a better candidate, has been sought to be brushed aside by the learned counsels for the respondents by contending that the writ Court would certainly not enter into a reappraisal of the inter se merit of the candidates who had appeared before the Selection Board/committee. The last point urged on behalf of the writ petitioner is sought to be met by contending that the selection by the State Selection Board under the 1981 Rules is a mere condition of eligibility and the order of preference indicated in such list cannot be considered as sacrosanct and knowing no departure. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has contended that what is contemplated by the rules in force is preparation of a general list of candidates eligible for appointment as Principals of aided college. Thereafter, the respective colleges issue advertisements and hold a further selection and in such selection, the previous selection made by the State Selection Board is considered as a condition of eligibility. It is argued that this is precisely what was done in the present case and on a relative consideration of the merit of the candidates before it, the Selection Committee of the college found the 6th respondent to be more meritorious. The writ petitioner did not figure in the said Select List, in these circumstances.
4. The arguments and counter arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered. The first two points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not detain the Court. It is difficult to comprehend as to how an order of ban on appointment would vitiate a selection held during the period of such ban. Reference to the documents relied upon by the petitioner to show that there was a ban on selections also, on due consideration, reflect a mere desire of the Minister that no selection should also be held up to 31.3.1998. Such a desire of the Minister cannot partake the character of a policy decision so as to invalidate the instant selection. The second point urged has been settled a long catena of decisions. This court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution would certainly not like to convert itself into a super selection body. In any case, there is hardly any judicially manageable standards or norms to answer the question posed, i.e. which of the two is the better candidate. In such a case, the rule of prudence demands that the writ Court should stay away from any such adjudication.
5. Coming to the last point urged, what must be noticed, is that the methodology adopted in the instant case is certainly not contrary to the provisions of the Rules; no material has been laid to show that the procedure followed was in departure to the prevailing practice. The eligible candidates having undergone a further selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued and the appointment in question having been made pursuant to such selection, no interference of this Court would be called for.
6. Consequently and in view of the foregoing discussions, the reliefs prayed for by the writ petitioner have to be refused. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it appropriate to impose any costs.